No one likes a party pooper, yet everyone loves the drama. If public intellectuals are essentially these individuals, then Howard Gardner surely qualifies. By sparking controversies against the historical foundation of general education systems, Howard Gardner has, after 50 years of work, has mobilized beneficial changes on society’s own accord. His studies on cognitive psychology have been transformative to the academic world, despite this not being his intention. The uncontrollableness of the domino effect following his lead is the true meaning and infiniteness of a public intellectual; though, his legacy's ‘hands-free’ element presents both the positive and negative aspects of public intellectuals.
According to Howard Gardner, his childhood was uneventful. Throughout the many books, TED talks, and articles, just two points regarding his youth are predominant– he had a passion for playing the piano, and he was an active participant in Boy Scouts. Other than that, Gardner himself accredits most of his development to the experiences of his parents (Mineo). His family escaped from Nazi Germany in 1934. They arrived in the US with just $5 to their name and no prior education. After losing their firstborn son, whom they claim to have put all of their resources toward, they let go of the reigns with Howard Gardner and allowed him to define his own boundaries. With this room for growth, Gardner grew. His intelligence and creativity took him to study undergrad and receive his doctorate from Harvard University, where he also became a professor of neurology, professor of cognition and education, and where he now continues his work (Gordon). One of his early projects was called ‘Project Zero,’ which he worked on along with his external job with brain-damaged patients. By day, he worked with those patients analyzing their cognitive functions and improvements; and by night, he examined young children’s minds with Project Zero. These two experiences together formed Gardner’s evidence around the brain’s divisions. As the brain is selective with the skills it inhibits upon damage, it is just as selective with its proficiencies and incompetencies with developing brains. As individuals can excel in some abilities, like musical talents, they can simultaneously be incapable of writing coherent sentences (Mineo).
Through further examination of these discrepancies, Gardner formed his theory on multiple intelligences and refused the widely accepted belief of a singular, general intelligence (g). Instead of valuing the set of cognitive abilities that can be ranked according to test scores, Gardner proposed eight new intelligences: logical-mathematical intelligence, musical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, spatial intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, and naturalist intelligence. He observed that society most values the linguistics; ie. lawyer, speaker/host, etc., and logical-mathematical intelligences; accountant, computer analyst, etc. when determining an individual's success. Many of his proposed intelligences are rather self-explanatory; however, I would like to highlight interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. These two deal with one's capacity to understand their intentions and motivations of themselves as well as the individuals around them. Many times, even if an individual excels in specific intelligences, like logical-mathematical, but lacks these other interactive intelligences, they will not be able to succeed in their field. His theories of intelligence agree more with the nurture side of the nature v. nurture debate, whereas general IQ (Intelligence Quotient) testing and education analyses focus on one’s natural intelligence with the aim to label individuals as either far on this scale (smart) or not. He expands upon these points in three books on multiple intelligences.
At the time, Gardner aimed to challenge academic psychologists on traditional intelligence; in spite of this, his work escalated in the world of teachers and school improvement workers. People in his own field criticized the details of the multiple intelligences, but educators did not feel the need to nitpick the specifics and instead took his broadness as the freedom to implement individualized tactics where they personally see fit. Others questioned Gardner's evidence, due to the fact that there is no way to test for these other intelligences and label them with scores as society needs. Other psychologists argue that studies do support ‘g’ intelligence and instead see his eight as talents rather than functioning aspects of the mind. Additionally, it is questioned why Gardner did not include strategies for educators with these theories; the reasoning being, again, that he never intended to shape modern schooling so harshly. In fact, he turned down opportunities where he was asked to aid in curriculum development. Gardner stayed silent about the misconceptions of his theory until they got to a point of “perniciousness” (Creativity, Ethics & the Future of Education – “Symphony of the mind”). People took his words to the extent of labeling entire races as having/lacking certain intelligences.
The main implications of Gardner's theories are individuation and pluralization. Since each person has their own unique profile of intelligences, teaching and assessing students identically is seemingly illogical (Marenus). Pluralizing information implies teaching in multiple manners that can stimulate different people in different ways. This is not to be confused with utilizing different learning styles, which means adjusting to the comfortable method of learning (whether visually, kinesthetically, etc.). Instead, the multiple intelligences theory states that these ranging degrees of proficiencies in intelligences can be activated by different approaches to initiate thought from multiple perspectives and provide a variety of ways to demonstrate skills. I worry about the implications of the potential emphasis on classism in America. I feel Gardner does not address enough of the systemic issues in neighborhoods without access to resources for individualization, as these tactics are most commonly seen in tutors and online programs– likely requiring wealthier family support. Yes, it has been effective for teachers and curriculum architects to reconfigure around Gardner’s studies; but, not all systems have the same passion and resources to be able to do so.
Building off of the tools for successful learning practices, Gardner shifts his focus from general ideas to working examples in The Good Project, a continuation of Project Zero in partnership with Harvard University. In this more recent work, and the work most valued by Gardner, he explores what tools we need to be successful as individuals working in the direction a greater society step by step from lower school to the workforce. He is intrigued by the dangers of decision-making once individuals have the toolset and developed primary intelligences. Society currently teaches us that to be successful, we need wit and grit. But, as Gardner states, Nazis had both of those and chose to use them toward unethical success (Gardner). Therefore, we question now the factors that support or inhibit our abilities to make good decisions, be effective collaborators, be good digital citizens, and engage in good civic participation. The Good Project undertakes these questions by putting young minds into “real-world dilemmas, reflective activities, and guided conversations” (The Good Project). Although, noting that these children cannot end up successful without their societies caring for what they are successful in, and neither can they be successful without the tools and the creativity– Gardner believes that the key is to combine creativity and ethics.
Creativity does not only entail the “big C” classification, such as the Picassos and Einsteins of the world but instead, should be nurtured in the “mini c” stage in everyday tasks. Unfortunately for us, the past promoted increased creativity as it allowed anyone to instigate any work, any science experiment, on any theory; hence, why certain theories, like the flat Earther’s view, have been carried out so intensely. Evidently, the best way to become creative is to live in a system where it is accepted and practiced. Students cannot be creative without teachers who are open to it and provide room for trial. Imagining the probability of this, I wonder, however, do societies really allow us to think about everything? There is a certain fear of incorrectness in facts but also morality that prevents classroom conversations from passing a certain carrying capacity due to the responsibility of respect to all opinions. But does this mean stopping the collaboration of ideas before they can even occur?
There is a very delicate line of responsibility in society today. There’s abundant sequences of trip wire, but despite being so responsible for the reactions of others, we, as a whole, all only feel responsible to work towards our own successes instead of the success of the collective society. Howard Gardner references Confucian societies as they focus on bettering the “we” more than the “I”, and Socratic societies better the “I” more than the “we,”-- but the goal is to better the “I” in creativity, and the “we” in responsibility. He proposes that for schools, the mission of “we” must be built into the DNA of the system. There can be no learning school body without learning faculty, and there can be no responsible student body without responsible faculty that prioritizes the community. This is how Gardner proposes we create “good workers”.
While creativity was better fostered with ease by the culture of past societies (Rennaissance, etc.), this also means the formation of radical opinions (public intellectuals) was more common. With less intellect, intellectuals had more of a direct impact. They could propose their questions and rapidly be considered with less of an ingrained belief system stopping this flow of thought and openness to new information. Consequentially, the impact of public intellectuals could be seen, not necessarily more than in current climate, but by different means. The most obvious results of public intellectuals today is criticism.
As stated previously, many dispute Gardner’s work due to its lack of instruction on this breakthrough of traditional means of education that is already actively functioning. There’s an infinite amount of reasons to ignore new opinions, just as Stephen Mack’s essay, “Are Public Intellectuals a Thing of the Past?” discusses. As Professor Mack writes regarding religion, people become deeply committed to a vision of society and will aim to make that vision law. The public has taken general education and IQ tests as binding truth and ran with them in a traditionalist manner. There is an outrage when certain students receive additional help, and there is an outrage when they don’t. Gardner’s ideas work towards breaking out of this black-and-white mentality. Even without this traditionalist and fearful view, certain people will continue to refuse a change to the system because of fairness and equality; thus, these almost elitist views that Garner suggests will hardly be accepted.
Gardner's assertions are arguably lacking specific direction and are up for interpretation, which has led him to be angered by his theories on multiple intelligences and goodness because of incorrect interpretations that follow. For public intellectuals as a whole, this is often the case due to the distinction between their role and that of activists or legislatures. These individuals offer information and suggestions, and most importantly, opinions. They are refuted so religiously because of this factor, which by the looks of it, gives their two cents without any of the dirty work. Democracy struggles to accept these opinions at all, even if supported by studies.
For public intellectuals, supplying the matches to fire but not necessarily inflicting tangible action to light it leads them to be controversial in their effectiveness. I feel Howard Gardner is a good representation of this claim, as this was a big topic of criticism around his beliefs. In some ways, it seems silly for this to be the entire career for some and could lead to the sizzling out of many depleting thoughts. On the other hand, handing the match to the world may actually be the best way to inflict change. Sparking the ideas in people's minds will cause them to adopt the train of thought onto themselves, to place it on their own conscious, and therefore, make any action on their own ideas. And by maintaining an element of broadness, people may build off of the public intellectual’s ideas for years to come as we continue to interpret them differently. Ever-changing circumstances will keep differentiating the meanings of sentences. Even in Gardner's original idea of multiple intelligences developed in 1993, he has corrected himself as our brains have developed more intelligences based on our surroundings. He recently explained the potential of new intelligences like pedagogical intelligence, the ability to teach; existential intelligence, the ability to ponder interesting questions; and the potential of technology causing the brain to adapt even more skills.
In some ways, the broadness and imaginativeness of Gardner’s work, and that of other public intellectuals, is parallel to the religious stance in the outlined debate in “Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual”(Mack). It is argued that though complete opposites, Democracy and religion are identical in many ways. Both “offer a vision of personal identity that is derived from beliefs about how we should relate to everything around us,” (Mack).The biggest gap in the democratic organization is the deeper sense of belonging that religion hones. Howard Gardner’s claims on multiple intelligences are, similarly to religion, slightly inexplicable without the clear biological mapping of the different sections of the brain. I feel his proposals, if accepted, offer that deeper sense of belonging but will not be supported by research at this moment in history. It eliminated the discrediting of minds due to their proficiency in unique fields other than that of general IQ testing. It is paradoxically a draw to his theory and a push. The resistance to accepting these debatable claims would have been much easier in another decade with less information. After all, who labeled the sectors of the brain in the first place? And why did we take their word for it then?
If we continue this analogy to religion, Williams’ arguments in Mack’s essay are quite clarifying. Taking his two fundamental assumptions and merging them with Gardners approaches to his work, we get this: the church (multiple intelligences) gets its authority from God (Howard Gardner), and civil society (general education) gets its authority from the People (traditional society). Williams claim is that, “By linking church and state, you don’t put God in charge of civil society but put the People (sinners and heretics included) in charge of the church. Or as he phrased it, you take “God and Christ and Spirit of Heaven, and subject them unto natural, sinful, inconstant men,” (Mack). For Gardner, this means we cannot take his radical and broad theories and put him in charge of our general education curriculums, as society tried so hard to do. Instead, we put society in charge of his findings on multiple intelligences, creativity, and success. This is what I claim to be the most powerful trait of public intellectuals– handing the power to society to make their own decisions off of their work.
Though the immediate impacts left by public intellectuals were much different in the past, public intellectuals have not been left in it. They would not be the same, however, without the disapproval from the public, which has definitely been maintained (arguably for the better). The biography of Howard Gardner is an excellent example of the controversies towards public intellectuals and their effectiveness as a whole. Even though his research began nearly 50 years ago, I predict the fullest extent of the results of his work will be seen in the years to come.
Comments